Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Windows ASM and DBCA in 10g

Re: Windows ASM and DBCA in 10g

From: Chris <christian.antognini_at_trivadis.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:04:34 +0200
Message-ID: <40e1cb51$1@post.usenet.com>

> As I said right at the start, I'm pretty fluent in creating ASM instances
> manually, just as I am in creating them in DBCA. That I can do it one way
> should not preclude me (nor, and this is the real point, any user) from
> wanting or being able to do it, fully functionally, the other way. CLI or
> GUI: it should make no difference. That it *does* seem to make a
difference
> is something I can live with and document accordingly... I was merely
hoping
> it was my stupidity that was the issue and not an inherent limitation of
the
> product. But it appears that it really is a, er, feature of the product.
> (Possibly. I still have to work out how Connor's work fits in to this
> picture).
>
> Again, I agree that DBCA creates an instance called +ASM... but I have
seen
> nothing in Oracle's documentation suggesting that when you create your own
> instances manually at the CLI that this is the only name you can
practically
> use. If that is actually a practical requirement, it's either a product
> bug/limitation, or its a documentation bug that should be fixed.

I completelly agree with you, this should be documented.

My opinion is that in the current release they hardcoded in some tools the name of the ASM instance. E.g. the grid control doesn't recognize it as an ASM instance if the name is not +ASM. Of course it should not be so difficult to test instance_type...

At least a database based on an ASM instance with a name that isn't +ASM works without problems, probably because the database doesn't contact the ASM instance directly but through OCSSD.

> So I'm not dismissing anything you've written: you've been very helpful.
> However, I'm not particularly seeking to find ways to get around these
> issues. I'm more in the business of simply trying to find out what the
> issues actually are. This one, of the ASM instance name, sounds like its a
> real issue that needs documenting as such.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Received on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 15:04:34 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US